Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

eBay's multi-petabyte relational database is massively sharded. Once you partition, you lose a most of your "relational" advantages anyway. This is how virtually all "large databases" end up, and once you go there, you are essentially nosql anyway (but with a much hairier and harder-to-incrementally-scale architecture).

It's for exactly this reason that smart players recognize that a traditional relational database approach doesn't really buy you anything in the eventual case when you need to scale. It's why google/facebook/et al have pioneered nosql approaches, and it's why Amazon uses Dynamo for their shopping cart app (and many others) instead of oracle/sqlserver/postgres.

You guys posting that traditional relational databases can handle the load of internet scale applications kill me. You mock this guy who has a legit problem that everyone who has ever run an internet scale technology is very familiar with.

NoSQL isn't some passing fad invented by high school kids.

Luckily, most of you will probably never discover that fact for yourselves, because you'll never have experience with a successful internet-scale architecture. Relational DBs are just fine for internal "enterprisey" apps, or for your hobby website that drives an astounding 1200 page views/month, or for your failed attempt at launching a web service that only ever garners 300,000 users, so you can continue to delude yourselves that there just isn't a problem here, and SQL is the only skillset you'll ever need.

For the elite few who actually achieve success, you'll totally know where the OP is coming from. Intimately. And you'll either be very glad that there is a path (hadoop, cassandra, mongodb, etc) to migrate to that solves your problems, or you'll be very glad that you started with one of those solutions in the first place.

cheesedog (603990) writes "The Google Chromium team wants to break important OS conventions for both Mac and Linux. Specifically, the URL omnibar will select all text on a single-click.
On Mac and Linux, the correct convention for text fields is:

single-click = place the cursor

double-click = highlight current word (could justify highlighting full URL here, if you consider it a single word)

triple-click = highlight entire line

Currently, these conventions are honored on OSX, but Chromium developers want to "fix" that.
On Linux, omnibar is hopelessly broken. Even worse than just breaking the principle of least surprise, by highlighting the text Chromium messes with X's PRIMARY clipboard, clobbering any previous selection you might have had from the highlight/middle-click option.
No other major browsers break behavior this way on Linux or Mac
The Chromium team likes it this way, wants to keep it broken on Linux, and wants to re-break it on OSX.
SPEAK NOW. Let the Chromium team know how you feel about this by either piping up in the chromium-dev mailing list or by commenting on one of the tickets."